24fandomcom-20200223-history
Talk:Curtis Manning
Trojan Horse? Curtis was not in this novel. Yes there was someone named Chip Manning but it wasn't him, I think we should remove it. -- 20:46, 2 May 2007 (UTC) : Can someone please verify this? --Deege515 19:00, 4 May 2007 (UTC) :: Anyone got any ideas?? SignorSimon 20:23, 15 January 2008 (UTC) ::: If noone responds, I think we need Chip Manning as a seperate article. It is definately not the same guy. SignorSimon 21:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC) I'll defer to your judgment, and agree that it should be changed so feel free to do so. Out of curiosity, how are you and 24.11.204.1 sure about this? – Blue Rook 22:25, 12 February 2008 (UTC)talk : I'm not sure who 24.11.204.1 is, but Curtis Manning was definately not a film star as well as a CTU agent. Marc Cerasini is just a bit odd and gives characters similar names. How do I stop the page Chip Manning being redirected here? SignorSimon 23:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC) :: Here's how: to edit Chip Manning, type it in as normal and it will redirect you to Curtis Manning. But once it redirects you, you'll see the following fine print right below the Curtis Manning page title: (Redirected from Chip Manning). In that fine print, unlike the reproduced version here, you can actually click to Chip Manning, the redirect page, but it will not redirect you. There you'll find the naked page for Chip Manning, where you can Edit it, delete the redirect text, and add who Chip Manning really was. It won't affect Curtis page at all. :: Of course you can tailor this method to change any redirect if necessary. For the record, there is a harder way... type in the URL box: ::: http://24.wikia.com/index.php?title=Chip_Manning&redirect=no :: but change the "Chip_Manning" text to whatever redirect you want to change. The other method is much easier, but those are the two ways I know how to skin this cat. Let me know if I lost ya on any of this. – Blue Rook 01:53, 13 February 2008 (UTC)talk Death When was it mentioned that Curtis died? - BlackWidower 03:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC) : I completely missed it twice if it was. I say we leave him Unknown until next week confirms either way. --Proudhug 04:24, 16 January 2007 (UTC) :: On the official 24 website from Fox.com, in the profiles section, it lists Curtis Manning as "deceased." That should be official confirmation right there. Check out the page at http://www.fox.com/24/profiles/cm.htm. : That works for me. I knew he was dead, but since they hadn't confirmed it on screen and the website hadn't been updated yet, we couldn't list it yet. --Proudhug 13:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC) Spoilers Spoilers have been posted on this page 3 times in 3 days. I propose protecting this page for now.--CWY2190 00:06, 10 January 2007 (UTC) : I personally don't think it's necessary, as there've been other legitimate edits to the page, but if you'd really prefer it, I don't have a problem protecting the page. --Proudhug 02:28, 10 January 2007 (UTC) :: I'm talking about until the episode airs. Better to prevent maybe a few unresitered people from correcting a punctuation mistake until Sunday than one more vandal to post a spoiler that might ruin it for even one person.--CWY2190 03:11, 10 January 2007 (UTC) : Oh, I see what you're saying. It's now protected from unregistered users. --Proudhug 04:09, 10 January 2007 (UTC) Hated/Unapreciated sic : "Is one of the most unapreciated characters of 24, mainly due to the lack of developement of his personality in spite of being in 2 seasons of the show." Before anyone gets into a huff about me deleting anything, I'd just like to confirm that this sentence does not belong anywhere on Wiki 24. --Proudhug 05:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC) : I agree. This sentence should be deleted.--CWY2190 19:41, 19 November 2006 (UTC) Day 5 Position What is Curtis' position during Day 5? Is he Head of Field Ops or is he Chief os Staff? --24 Administration 21:29, 12 May 2006 (UTC) :I believe that he's Director of Field Operations for CTU Los Angeles. -Kapoli 21:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC) ::Which leads to he quesion, who is Chief of Staff. --86.129.31.71 12:42, 21 May 2006 (UTC) :::Well, Michelle was killed, so Buchanan took that position once Lynn came in. After Lynn died, Homeland came in, so Miles probably took that spot. And now it's probably back to Buchanan. Squall Deckiller 15:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC) ::::Michelle didn't work at CTU during Day 5. I thought Bill was the Special Agent in Charge... not Chief of Staff. I don't know what Bill became once Lynn came in, though. -Kapoli 18:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Bill's actual position didn't change when Lynn came in. Lynn outranked him, but Lynn didn't have a job job at CTU Los Angeles. He was only there as a temporary supervisor. --StBacchus 00:15, 22 May 2006 (UTC) :: It's weird. Curtis doesn't wear a dress shirt and dress pants. He wears jeans. At the Ontario airport hostage crisis, he is the agent in charge of the operation. But then he invokes section 12 to remove Lynn. He even tells Lynn that he will "draw out his weapon" if he attempts to put him in custody. It appears that he is both the Chief of Staff and the Director of Field Operations at the same time. Day 5 Length Doesn't Day 5 go from 8:00 till 8:00, not 7:00 till 7:00 like on this page. :Nope, it's the same as Day 4, 7-7. Check out the Day 5 page. --StBacchus 11:36, 15 September 2006 (UTC) More photos Is it me or there not many photos of Curtis here, or the rest of the internet? Which, in my opinion, is quite a shame as many affectionately refer to him as Jack number two Day 4 Info I added some more of what Curtis did during Day Four. I have the DVDs but I leant them to a friend, so could someone please wrap up what happened? I got as far as the Rockland building, but that is all I can remmber. I also remember an awesome bit where Curtis jumps out behind Mandy, and punches her in the face. But that is it. His profile on Fox. Doesn't add up. Especially in season 4, when Erin introduced Curtis as her Chief of staff, then in season 6, they have a video of Curtis when he was in Army Special Forces. It could be, that he was the Assistant Director of Field Operations at CTU Los Angeles after day 3, then he got promoted to Chief of staff. Or, he could have been serving as the Chief of staff/Assistant Director of Field Operations at the same time. Another thing that proves Curtis is the COS is when Chloe said to him "Curtis, you're the Chief of staff, we need you to invoke article 112 on Lynn" or something around the lines of that. Pink Band-Aid Has anyone got a shot of Curtis Manning wearing a pink band-aid over his left temple?--Timtak 09:29, 26 January 2009 (UTC) : Please note that this talk page is reserved for discussions relating only to the article for the character in question. I don't think I remember seeing such an image; how come you ask? 10:11, 26 January 2009 (UTC) :: Well to me the pink bandage was very memorable. I don't know which day/season it was in but, you can see the image here on the google cache. --Timtak 11:32, 26 January 2009 (UTC) : The picture you linked to seems to be from Curtis's last scene, where he's holding his neck in shock after Jack shoots him, but I'm not noticing any pink bandage. A related image is this one, File:AssadManning.jpg, but I don't see it there. You're sure it exists? 11:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::I am sorry. On closer inspection it does seem to be just a shine and not a bandange. I am not 100% sure that it exists on Curtis Manning, but pretty sure. It was in an american drama involving anti-criminal agencies with black male chief operative. The only drama I watch of that type is 24. And I think that Curtis Manning is the only black male chief operative (other than President Palmer). --Timtak 12:09, 26 January 2009 (UTC) : I bet you're thinking of the actor who played Palmer, Dennis Haysbert, as Jonas in "The Unit" tv show. 12:52, 26 January 2009 (UTC) ::I have not seen "The Unit" tv show. I have seen very few US television dramas. I am sure that it was in 24. I am almost postive it was Curtis manning. There was some sort of fight or explosion or something which caused him to get hurt and in a couple of subsequent shots he was shown with a pink bandaid. Since I know that brown bandaids exist I was surprised to see him wearling a bandaid of that colour. Concievably it could have been another African American actor in the same series. --Timtak 12:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC) ::: Unfortunately this topic doesn't really qualify as pertinent to the character's article. If you find it, however, please feel free to upload and insert it into an appropriate spot if the image is of good quality. 00:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC) Jack Bauer kill Should we add in Background information and notes that Curtis Manning appeared in the most episodes for a character killed by Jack Bauer? --Station7 17:35, August 18, 2011 (UTC) : Sure that seems notable enough to me. I always planned to reorganize those notes, so if you add it, and then I shuffle it to a new spot there, please don't take offense. 21:12, August 18, 2011 (UTC) Voice-only appearance I recently watched Day 5: 6:00pm-7:00pm, and I didn't catch Curtis Manning's voice in the episode; however, I have a theory about why some people think he makes a voice-only appearance. Early-ish in the episode, Chloe O'Brian is on the phone, and I think she asks Curtis how long he thinks it will be before he gets back to CTU. She pauses, then she says something like, "Yeah, okay." I didn't hear anything during the pause, definitely not anything that sounded remotely like Curtis's voice nor anything that would make sense as a reply to Chloe's question. The subtitles also said, "Thank you," after Chloe's "Yeah, okay," and you might be tempted to think that Curtis said thank you very quietly and maybe you didn't hear it; however, the subtitles use a dash to indicate when a new character begins speaking, and there was no dash in this case. That probably indicates that the script called for Chloe to say thank you before hanging up, but she just didn't say it. I suggest that Roger Cross is credited because at some point in production he was intended to appear in this episode, and when they deleted his scene(s) they just forgot to remove the credit. Does anybody agree or disagree with me that Curtis doesn't actually appear in this episode in any way, shape, or form?--Sampson789 (talk) 02:23, October 21, 2014 (UTC) ::I seem to recall that he was on the phone with Chloe yet wasn't audible. Cross could've easily been on-set talking to Mary Lynn but didn't go back into ADR to make the voice be overheard though.--Gunman6 (talk) 02:45, October 21, 2014 (UTC) :::Please forgive my ignorance, what is ADR? :::Anyway, if he wasn't audible, then he didn't appear, right?--Sampson789 (talk) 03:06, October 21, 2014 (UTC) ::::Additional Dialogue Recording; something most productions do since not all audio will be consistent in one take and will be recorded later in another post-production session. Anyway, I'm beside myself on this one. He's credited yet doesn't appear; it seems like dialogue is supposed to be heard yet isn't; I honestly don't know what to say.--Gunman6 (talk) 06:11, October 21, 2014 (UTC) :::: If you're confident about it, you can make the changes as no one has provided proof otherwise. You should be proud to have found an oversight that has lasted this long Sampson! :::: Let me know if you'd like an extra set of eyes for the edits? Besides updating his character article's BGINs and its appearances template, the episode guide will need I think two corrections, and I suspect there are other notes where Curtis's episode tally will have to be reduced from 45 to 44. 08:50, November 21, 2014 (UTC) :::::Thanks Blue Rook! Would you please help me with the edits?--Sampson789 (talk) 02:27, November 23, 2014 (UTC) ::::Far as I can tell, you got it all already :) I will definitely keep an eye out however sometimes one sneaks by ... 06:06, December 2, 2014 (UTC) D6 antagonist Since this constitutes what could be a majorly controversial change, I'd like to run it by everyone here first. I'd like to add Curtis to the D6 antagonist category, plain and simple. I believe all of us, myself included of course, have flat out missed this, but the guy was a complete, total villain after a certain point in D6, plain and simple. And it wasn't heat-of-the-moment, temporary insanity stuff... there were no excuses. He was obviously planning something horrible shortly after he received word that Assad was being protected by the President. He went bad, as much as we've been turning our heads to it all these years. Curtis was an easy character to love, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that he was ultimately a tragic case. Does anyone oppose me adding the category? (And also moving him up to "Miscellaneous" subheading at Day 6 antagonists?) 01:23, February 12, 2016 (UTC) :I agree he should be in the "See Also" section of the D6ant page (I put him there a few days ago), but I dint think he should be put in the category considering all that good stuff he's done. Not to mention, this would warrant making Jack a D8ant since he almost started a world war. So I don't think he fits in the categSuperbowserX (talk) 03:00, February 12, 2016 (UTC) :No, I don't agree with this. Jack Bauer on Day 8 is not considered an antagonist, regardless of his actions later on it. Therefore, I say we don't add Curtis as a Day 6 antagonist. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:27, February 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Agree with both SuperbowserX and BattleshipMan. Jack almost started a war, while Curtis Manning considered to kill Hamri Al-Assad. If Curtis is included, so should Bauer. Both for different reasons, but the cause of action is similar. --Station7 (talk) 19:32, February 12, 2016 (UTC) :I agree that Curtis is an antagonist in Day 6. But not that Jack is an antagonist in Day 8. The definition of an antagonist is not based on comparing their actions to your own moral judgement, but comparing their actions to that of the protagonist of the fiction. Jack is the protagonist of the entire series - if he were an antagonist in Day 8, that would make someone like Charles Logan the protagonist. Whereas Curtis stood in clear opposition to Jack, the protagonist, during Day 6. Check out the definition of what an antagonist is on wikipedia--Acer4666 (talk) 15:29, February 14, 2016 (UTC) ::I was shocked by this suggestion, and thought it was a bit of a stretch. But I do understand the rationalization behind, so I think it does deserve some thinking through. I haven't seen Season 6 in years, so I'm not very clear on Curtis' actions during that day, but we have to put it in perspective against other former "good guys" that acted wrong for different reasons to see if he fits. Thief12 (talk) 16:17, February 14, 2016 (UTC) :::I just don't think he deserves to be put in a category considering how he was always on Jack's side, and all the good stuff he does and how he was one of the two people who came to pick up Jack. Also, I always thought (not stated in-show my thought) that Jack was sympathetic with Curtis for wanting to take out a suspect prematurely since he's done it a handful of times (Haas, Nina and whatnot). I think it's enough he goes to the "See Also" section, but that's just my opinion, and I can see where you guys r coming from--SuperbowserX (talk) 18:43, February 14, 2016 (UTC) In reply to the points that come up, I'll repeat that I do personally recognize that this is an emotionally-fraught situation, but it is not a tough call in the end. Curtis went bad. He went against Jack; he went against the President; he went against the entire apparatus of CTU... and most importantly, he went against the common good to threaten a reformed man (Assad) who would later go on to sacrifice his own life to save Wayne Palmer. He planned to make a move against Assad for the better part of 2 episodes; it wasn't spur-of-the-moment. As best I can determine, these are the arguments against the move that have been put forward, summarized in red, and my replies: # "Curtis has done too many good things in the past to be labeled as an antagonist." Unfortunately this is not an argument, it is a feeling, an emotional statement. His heroism in prior seasons does not somehow cancel out his plot and attempt to kill Assad against the common good and in the middle of a national crisis. # "Well if Jack is not labeled as an antagonist for his revenge killings during Day 8, then Curtis shouldn't be one for an attempted revenge-killing during Day 6." Curtis on D6, and Jack on D8, do seem similar on the surface, but they do not compare. Jack wanted to kill the conspiratorial Russians because they were still a real threat; they were still committing on-screen murders (Renee, Samir) during the season itself! On the other hand, Curtis wanted to kill Assad for his crimes in the past, and worse, after Curtis learned definitively that Assad had genuinely changed his ways. Curtis knew that Wayne now supported Assad, and he also knew that Assad was instrumental in stopping the subway attack alongside Jack. In other words, Curtis wanted to kill someone who wasn't a villain anymore. # "Other good guys have done bad things, so more comparisons are needed." This is not so much an argument but a call for expanded discussion. Numerous other examples exist where heroes do messed up things. (Jack murdered Haas and Henderson, two completely defenseless men, in cold blood. Tony assisted Stephen Saunders in escaping.) But I cannot recall in any of those scenarios where the circumstances are comparable to Curtis's particular situation. Tony was acting under duress to assist Saunders. Haas and Henderson are much more crimes of passion to avenge murders that just occurred during their current season, than Curtis's two episodes of grimace-faced plotting for crimes that happened years earlier. As mentioned, in terms of the drama, Haas and Henderson were still antagonists when Jack finished them. Assad was not. I'd definitely want to discuss any other comparisons if someone is willing to specify any, as well. 18:35, March 11, 2016 (UTC) :But, Curtis never killed Assad. He attempted and that's all. Yes, his actions were against everyone, but he didn't killed Assad at all. He was still alive thanks to Bauer. Are there more revenge-plot killings during others seasons familiair with this? --Station7 (talk) 00:17, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::So is Syed Ali not an antagonist then? He never got to nuke L.A. after all, thanks to Bauer. Or how about Jonathan Matijevich, since Jack was there to stop him from putting a hole in David Palmer's head? ::Yeah, I think you would agree that'd be a silly reason not to label those two as antagonists, so the same goes for Curtis. Just because he failed to achieve his goal doesn't change the fact that Curtis (like Ali or Matijevich) was going against Jack, the protagonist, making him—by definition—an antagonist. 01:30, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :::I don't agree with adding Curtis as a Day 6 antagonist at all as it is irrelevant at best. I don't agree with what Blue Rook states about his argument to add Curtis as a Day 6 antagonist. BattleshipMan (talk) 03:16, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Uhh...care to elaborate on that, Battleship? 03:57, March 12, 2016 (UTC) :::The problem is that if we add Curtis as a Day 6 antagonist, it could create another issue with Jack on Day 8 since he has been protagonist in the entire show. We can't let one argument about Curtis as a Day 6 antagonist can be a factor into a future argument over Jack on Day 8 for consensus reasons. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:51, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::The problem with Syed Ali and Jonathan is that we saw them as antagonists. Curtis was ignoring orders and if his only plan was killing Assad, he failed at that. --Station7 (talk) 09:28, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::Tony Almeida also attempted to kill Christopher Henderson while he was in the CTU medical clinic. He wasn't at that moment a threat either to Tony, until Henderson stabbed him back. It was actually Almeida's fault. --Station7 (talk) 09:33, March 12, 2016 (UTC) ::: BattleShip, Station7, and SuperBowser, here is a question: why did Jack intentionally shoot and kill Curtis? 16:35, March 14, 2016 (UTC) ::::Because he held Hamri Al-Assad hostage who killed his man. Well, if that's the reason, why don't list then Tony Almeida as Day 5 antagonist. It's a similiair reason, both men were trying to get revenge for the one who killed people who were close to them. So if list Curtis as such, why ignore Almeida as Day 5 antagonist? That's not fair. --Station7 (talk) 18:08, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :::::This subject is controversial at best. If we add Curtis as a Day 6 antagonist, we could have future arguments about similar issues like Jack in Day 8 and Tony in Day 5, which they are not antagonists. That's my problem with that. BattleshipMan (talk) 18:43, March 14, 2016 (UTC) As mentioned in #2 of my earlier post (3/11), Jack on Day 8 does not compare to Curtis on D6. Anyone can continue to disagree, but, simply repeating that one disagrees is insufficient to progress an debate. Since Tony and Henderson is a new comparison, I'll be happy to address that one: Tony was considering it in the heat of the moment, and then stopped himself. Quite the opposite, Curtis was plotting it for basically 2 episodes, and said "I can't let this animal live". He indicated that he would not stand down. Jack was forced to kill him to save Assad. Guys, remember Jack didn't kill Curtis for fun, or because his trigger finger slipped. He did it because Curtis turned into a serious antagonist. Buchanan and all the other characters agreed in all the dialogue that immediately followed. No one arrested Jack or questioned his decision! 20:15, March 14, 2016 (UTC) :Following that logic about Tony not counting as an antagonist because he changed his mind at the last second, would we also remove the antagonist label from Marcos Al-Zacar and Marko Khatami?--Acer4666 (talk) 20:25, March 14, 2016 (UTC) Also what about Theresa Ortega? Isn't she also an antagonist? I'm putting her under see also in the D3Ant page on this note--SuperbowserX (talk) 08:12, March 15, 2016 (UTC) : Theresa Ortega is definitely an antagonist, I agree with Superbowser. She found her husband's pistol, plotted carefully, and shot a defenseless man. Tony is not an antagonist because he got the thought in his head in the heat of the moment but did not follow through. Certainly a character can be allowed to "think" bad thoughts without being classed among blood-soaked terrorists and mercenaries. I also agree with BattleshipMan that Tony D5 and Jack D8 are not antagonists, but I disagree those situations are comparable to Curtis D6. Marcos Al-Zacar and Marko Khatami are certainly antagonists because throughout the day, all the way up until they changed their minds, they were absolutely terrorists. (In other words, changing mind doesn't cancel out being a card-carrying antagonist beforehand.) 16:54, March 15, 2016 (UTC) :: There is no difference that I can possibly see between Tony on Day 5 and Theresa on Day 3. Tony also "carefully plotted" by taking out Besson, getting a gun and then waiting the whole episode before knocking out Rick Burke and then attempting to kill Henderson. He actually spent longer plotting his revenge than Theresa did. I dunno if the heat of the moment or the changing of the mind is what disqualifies him as an antagonist but I can give examples of other antagonists that do both of those things (act in heat of moment or change their mind about their actions) :: What about Elizabeth Nash, Inessa Kovalevsky, Martha Logan on Day 6? Again I see no real difference other than subjective ones that can be argued by making an arbitrary set of rules. I think saying these revenge killings make the people antagonists is perhaps going too far with the definition. So I've probably changed my mind on Curtis being listed as one, as well as Theresa--Acer4666 (talk) 18:28, March 15, 2016 (UTC) ::Michelle Dessler also killed a defenseless man, Danny. Should we list her as well? It doesn't make any sense at all. It's going to be ridicilous. --Station7 (talk) 23:40, March 15, 2016 (UTC) :::Danny is completely different, that was to stop him spreading the virus. That was for the greater good, like Ryan Chappelle's death, rather than a revenge killing for personal satisfaction (which is what this discussion is about)--Acer4666 (talk) 23:43, March 15, 2016 (UTC) ::::You're right about that revenge-plot killing thing where we are talking about, but you brought also on the table the above names from Marko Khatami en Marcos Al-Zacar (both were not revenge plot killings). But if Curtis is listed, so should Almeida. But for me, this dicussion is ridicilous. --Station7 (talk) 00:02, March 16, 2016 (UTC) ::::: Ok Station7, if participating in a normal discussion is "ridiculous", please excuse yourself from the discussion and refrain from calling everyone else's civilized debate an insulting term repeatedly. ::::: Acer, when everyone resists Curtis being added to this category, my challenge is this: why did Jack shoot him? and why didn't the other characters stop Jack? For a moment, let's stop looking at other examples because all those situations are different. Just look at Curtis. What do you think? 14:09, March 16, 2016 (UTC) :::::OK, I didn't said that you or anyone else is ridicilous. I found the discussion ridicilous. I am allowed to have that meaning. --Station7 (talk) 18:20, March 16, 2016 (UTC) :::I'm sure judging antagonist/not antagonist based on other character's reactions is quite the way to go, but I would answer with: Jack shot him for the greater good. Assad was needed alive to stop the terrorist attacks, and so Jack did anything he had to to keep Assad alive. Kind of like how he did whatever he had to keep Lee Jong alive. I think Jack's reaction is comparable to that situation (note I am not comparing Curtis's actions in this comparison, just Jack's). Immediately after, Jack acted very regretful of what he had to do to in order to stop the terrorist attack. Had there not been an imminent attack that only Assad could help stop, I don't believe Jack would have shot Curtis dead the way he did. ::: I don't see how that reaction of Jack's makes Curtis an antagonist though. As for Curtis's actions, I do believe they are comparable with Tony in Day 5, Martha Logan on Day 6, Hamid Al-Zarian, Elizabeth Nash, Theresa Ortega, Inessa Kovalevsky, etc, which I don't think makes him, or indeed any of them, antagonists.--Acer4666 (talk) 18:35, March 16, 2016 (UTC) :::In fact I think that if any of those characters I mentioned had not done their attempted killing immediately, and Jack was in a position to shoot them dead to stop them doing it, he probably would have. Jack always does what he has to do to minimise loss of life, so if it means shooting down/killing a non-antagonist to do so he will. So I don't see Jack's actions as indicative of Curtis being an antagonist--Acer4666 (talk) 18:39, March 16, 2016 (UTC) :::: None of those examples compare. Curtis was an extremely experienced CTU lead agent, with lives in his hands and a profound responsibility to remain professional in times of crisis, who went bad -- absolutely, unequivocally bad -- and stated he would kill a reformed key witness during a flippin' nuclear crisis, when his professionalism was needed most. Everyone is going to compare his situation to Tony, who wasn't even an agent and who was freshly traumatized by the murder of his wife? and who just got blasted by a car bomb a few hours prior? And to the likes of Hamid, Elizabeth Nash, Theresa, Inessa? Civilians, all of them, utterly untrained and also freshly traumatized by crimes. And the mentally-unstable Martha Logan? Really? I'm having such a hard time believing that everyone is failing to see the differences between these situations and Curtis. The arguments against categorizing Curtis as an antagonist are just naked comparisons, hand-waving, and grumbling about the slippery slope. 15:28, March 18, 2016 (UTC) ::There are subjective differences, sure, if you make an arbitrary ruleset based on "length of time since person was wronged" or "amount of training" but really these are completely irrelevant. You yourself have just flipped opinion that now Theresa is not an antagonist , despite saying "Theresa Ortega is definitely an antagonist, I agree with Superbowser. She found her husband's pistol, plotted carefully, and shot a defenseless man." This is all subjective opinion and wording things in a particular way, but there's nothing been said that is in the least bit convincing me that Curtis can be objectively treated as an antagonist when the other examples are clearly not antagonists.--Acer4666 (talk) 17:45, March 18, 2016 (UTC) ::(I know I also flipped opinion in this debate about Curtis, haha, but I think using the strict definition of the term "antagonist" would lead to vast swathes of characters being added who ever disagreed with Jack, so that definition can't really apply to categorising these folks, and we need to have a stricter criteria for people's inclusion)--Acer4666 (talk) 17:48, March 18, 2016 (UTC) ::& How about Jack shooting an unarmed Nina during Day 3? Long length of time since her crime, trained professional agent in the middle of a WMD crisis, kills the only active lead...I'm sure you are able to come up with some other arbitrary difference between them that makes one antagonistic and the other not, but I really think everything is pointing to these "revenge killings" not making someone an antagonist--Acer4666 (talk) 17:55, March 18, 2016 (UTC) ::: When I construct replies, generally I'll write out opposing opinions, reply to them all to be organized, then erase the opposing opinions. I forgot to erase that bit about Theresa. She is not an antagonist; we agree on that. ::: But to say that a freshly-widowed civilian is held to the same standard as an extremely professional government agent in a time of freakish national crisis... is unacceptable and holds no water whatsoever. It holds no water either OOU or IU. The circumstances surrounded Curtis's background, decision, and actions are not irrelevant at all. ::: Ah, Nina. Since we're back to death by 100,000 comparisons: Nina was reaching for a pistol. She wasn't defenseless. 20:16, March 29, 2016 (UTC) ::I'm sorry if providing legitimate comparisons for discussion is annoying you, but you did say "I'd definitely want to discuss any other comparisons if someone is willing to specify any". ::Nina's reaching for the gun is not why Jack shot her at all, he asked her a question about her having more information and claimed she had none. She was not a threat to him at all in that moment. It is another case of an extremely professional government agent avenging a years-old crime in the face of a freakish national crisis. But none of that matters, though: Making arbitrary lines in the sand due to "civilians can't count as antagonists" doesn't work (Marcus (Day 2), Rouse et al were civilians emotionally reacting to a fresh situation that had just happened). The fact Curtis is a trained CTU agent and others aren't is a subjective, personal distinction being made due to your opinions - but their actions were the same, plain and simple--Acer4666 (talk) 21:11, March 29, 2016 (UTC) ::: It's all anyone is doing, though. Thinking up every possible comparison and threatening the slippery slope. It's just frustrating when I'm trying to make a specific case based upon its own merits, and no one is really looking at what I'm saying at all. Just "well what about this other situation" and all I'm doing is explaining why this situation is different from such-and-such, and then being told my statements about Curtis aren't factual, they're somehow just opinions. Overall this whole experience of trying to explain that Jack killed Curtis and was not arrested for it because Curtis was an antagonist is becoming stultifying for me. The desperate non sequiturs and the ceaseless barrage of inapplicable knee-jerk "comparisons" boggles the mind. Everyone just "doesn't want to see Curtis categorized as an antagonist". ::: Regarding Nina: you are stating that Jack wasn't in any danger when a profoundly dangerous archvillain was reaching for a pistol. There is no reply to that. If you honestly believe that, there is no discussion to be had on that point. She just murdered a bunch of people and was reaching for a live weapon, but no, not a threat at all. ::: Also please note I never specifically said these words: "civilians can't count as antagonists". That's madness of course and a straw-man to boot. They certainly can be antagonists. Once again it is a matter of examining the situations. Every member of this community agrees that Marcus/Rouse/Cole were antagonists because of their situation. They were mouth-breathing racists who stomped and beat a random person to death with a brick just because he was Middle Eastern. More straw-men than a scarecrow factory ;) 23:38, April 7, 2016 (UTC) ::Ok if we are going to ignore logical comparisons to other characters, then all we really have is that you think Curtis's actions make him an antagonist and I don't. He attempted to rid the world of an avowed terrorist who had brutally murdered one of his closest friends. Jack shot and killed him because their priorities were misaligned at the time, but they were both attempting to act for good.--Acer4666 (talk) 00:41, April 8, 2016 (UTC) Part 2 To make the newest parts of this discussion easier to reach (I'm getting annoyed scrolling 2 the bottom) I'm making this new section which continues straight where the previous left off. And Blue Rook, your arguments are true and hold water, but... It just doesn't feel right. That's it. It's not logical I won't deny, but it feels just wrong on a vibe level. I think "See Also" is enough. Curtis did a whole lot of good for Jack and it's off-putting to label him as an antagonist after he was one of the two people who welcomed Jack back in (I know this is illogical but still xD) Bottom line, I agree with these arguments, but I think "See Also" is enough. :The "see also" section of the antagonists page is for antagonists who don't fit into one of the main heirarchy structures. Not for "non-antagonists". So all the examples I gave above should not be in that section, if we agree that they are not antagonists.--Acer4666 (talk) 17:45, March 18, 2016 (UTC) : We need to always reject strictly emotional arguments. I even mentioned this in my opening post. ("Curtis was an easy character to love, but we shouldn't ignore the fact that he was ultimately a tragic case.") It doesn't "feel" right to me either, but, that's not what consensus discussions are about. 20:16, March 29, 2016 (UTC) Time of Death This page says that Curtis Manning died at 9:54am. While the on-screen kills by Jack Bauer page says that Curtis died at 9:55am. Which one is right? --Station7 (talk) 22:59, October 29, 2016 (UTC) It appears that this is forgotten. Could somebody please check this out? Two different timestamps and only one is right. Greets from --Station7 (talk) 23:20, November 1, 2016 (UTC)